Solo climber loses life in Yosemite N. P.

Maybe the transience is due to intransigence?
The quest for truth is a lonely endeavor.

Very true: comprise is difficult for some, easy for others, sometimes necessary, sometimes compromise proves to regrettable afer the fact.

I think I agree with JimD's post. Wether it's a morality question depends on your personal view and the " contract" you have with your loved ones. If you have married somebody who knows you do this stuff and made it clear thats the way it is, then I see no morality question. Children can't decide wether to be born or not so I think that when you have children the equation changes and responsibility to them creates a moral issue as to wether you continue to risk your life.
Responsibility to parents..... no, I see no morailty issue there.

He may have already WRITTEN IT .

Ron I like this new you ;D. Rather than be passive/aggressive as you've been in the past you're actively being sarcastic and making fun of people.
Good on ya mate, welcome to the club.
Wanna buy a vowel!

Scotsman, I've learned that it is pointless to debate with you in this forum. So, I'm not going to address any of your misrepresentations of my views. I'll just ask that people read what I actually wrote, instead of what you say I believe. Have a nice day.

I think you should enter politics Lowell.
Your usual refrain that I am misrepresenting your views is one commonly used by congressmen when the hypocrisy of their position is illuminated by their past actions and public utterances.
You seem to have it down pat.

but instead of retreating behind the shield of your indignation about my posts why don't you front on address my accusation that someone who publicly expresses the views you do regarding extreme "risk your life" sports and then publishes a magazine, glamorizing, promoting and recording the same is a hypocrite.
Maybe your nuanced explanation will convince me (and others ) otherwise.

Maybe your nuanced explanation will convince me (and others ) otherwise.

That's funny, Chris. The idea that you would be convinced by nuance.

Your objection to my statements is based mainly on your dislike of me, not on the statements themselves. You said you agreed with JimD's post. JimD said he agreed with me and his statements were quite similar to what I wrote. So what's your problem?

Your obsession with hypocrisy is scraping the bottom of the barrel because you've run out of other arguments but you're still angry. It's simply an attack on me. No explanation I can give you will do any good.

That's funny, Chris. The idea that you would be convinced by nuance.

Your objection to my statements is based mainly on your dislike of me, not on the statements themselves. You said you agreed with JimD's post. JimD said he agreed with me and his statements were quite similar to what I wrote. So what's your problem?

Your obsession with hypocrisy is scraping the bottom of the barrel because you've run out of other arguments but you're still angry. It's simply an attack on me. No explanation I can give you will do any good.

Simply not true Lowell on so many levels.
I do not dislike you nor am I angry with you but I admit your latest position on the morality of risk taking and the merchandising and glamorization of it when coupled with your editorship of a magazine doing just that, irritates me.

Actually it was some of your arguments and finally JimD's that lead me to my conclusion that a question of morality only exists when children are involved but not regarding responsibility to parents or spouses. I thought that a fairly nuanced conclusion based upon the arguments presented and I had the grace and honesty to state it. So we eventually agreed on some form of morality, although not to the same degree.

I however did not agree with your arguments on merchandizing and glamorization .
Nor do I edit, publish and promote a magazine that differs from my stated position.
You do and it is that position I find highly hypocritical and asked you to explain.

I'm going to lock this up -- I've gotten some message from folks who think the discussion is good and has merit, but are hesitant to participate because of the thread's original topic. 

Telemack, you ask a great question and it would good to have a separate thread on that, in particular, but the back and forth going on here seems out of place.  Please feel free to start another thread on that topic.

To Christina's family, I'm sorry for your loss.